A singular case of matrimonial difficulty, where the parties were of the lower orders, was recently brought out in the Norwich County Court. The facts arose in a claim, or rather in two claims, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It appeared, that a man named Mathew Charles Clarke was killed while working for the Norwich Corporation. Two compensation claims were at once put forward by two women, each woman setting herself up to be the man’s wife. According to the report, Mathew Charles Clarke, the defunct workman, married a woman named Elizabeth Shreeve in the year 1870. This important ceremony took place at Norwich. In 1873, the happy couple migrated to Newcastle, with the two children of the union. The following year they all returned to Norwich, in order that Clarke might go through his annual training in the Militia. The villain of the piece, a Militiaman called James Leech, then appeared on the scene. His initial _rôle_ was that of a friend of the husband. When the Clarkes returned to Newcastle, Leech, most appropriately named, went with them. His status was that of a lodger in the household. The personality of the man must, for his humble sphere, have been great indeed, for, in 1875, we find Mathew Charles Clarke ousted from his house and from his wife’s embraces; ousted, even, from Newcastle. Leech and Mrs. Clarke remained, while poor Clarke was only too glad to get back to Norwich alive. In 1886, eleven years after his departure from Newcastle, Clarke went through a form of marriage, before the Registrar at Norwich, with a woman named Elizabeth Cotton. This woman lived with him as his wife until his death. She did not know, it may be added, that he had ever had any previous matrimonial experience. From 1875 until 1888, Mrs. Clarke and her quondam lodger, Leech, remained at Newcastle. Then, they, too, returned to Norwich. No doubt they expected to make a “good thing” out of Clarke’s death, for no sooner had the man been killed than Mrs. Clarke put in her claim for compensation. Elizabeth Cotton, who had long believed herself to be the lawful spouse of Mathew Charles Clarke, then discovered to her dismay that her alliance was fictitious in law. She, however, persisted in her claim for compensation. No doubt a dramatic scene took place in the County Court, when the two fair relicts of Mathew Charles Clarke, deceased, shrieked their rights at the judge. We have heard of the Rights of Man, but they are as nothing alongside of the rights of women--more particularly of the class in question. His Honour Judge Mulligan, K.C., who heard the claims, was no doubt sorely tried before he was able to say, “I infer that Clarke was well aware of the relations between his wife and her lodger, and would, if he had been a man of means, have employed one of the esoteric counsel in the Divorce Court to obtain a dissolution of his marriage. But he had not the means to go to London, and there is no Divorce Court in Norfolk. The